Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try, but all the evening news broadcasts are calling Obamacare a disaster and wondering if Sebelius should be fired. That makes sense to me...another woman for Obama to hide behind.
Nice try, but all the evening news broadcasts are calling Obamacare a disaster and wondering if Sebelius should be fired. That makes sense to me...another woman for Obama to hide behind.
But Twitter says otherwise according to Mother Jones.
I used to be a programmer for a fortune 500 company. We had software that simulated any number of simultaneous users at any given point that we ran the new site through before anything went live. That is a common part of any best practice when writing a site. It is by far one of the easier tests to do on a new site. It is literally nothing more than pointing the software to your test environment, enter the number of simultaneous users, and let it run overnight.
The fact that they obviously didn't even do something as basic as that is insane. How does that instill any measure of confidence in this administration that they can't figure out what every college freshmen CS major knows?
They did some load testing the week before it launched. It failed with a load of a few hundred users. They chose to launch it anyway. They weren't willing to give Republican a delay, American people be damned.
Something I learned recently as I've been checking the individual insurance company sites, their records aren't up-to-date. I couldn't find one of my doctors on one insurance companies "physician search" so I expanded the range to search and got a hit...with an address she had over 10 years ago in another city. This doesn't bode well for any other sites that tries to use the information does it? It seems that at every step the government healthcare site is also at the mercy of whatever bad data they are pulling from other sources. ON TOP of their own problems.
It's entertaining to watch the GOP practically salivate over the issues the website has had under some misguided hope that this spells the end of the ACA.
Here are a few things to remember.
1). Most Americans already have health insurance, so the website is of no relevance to them.
2). Because of the law...an array of new benefits are available even to those that don't need the website.
3). 26 year olds can stay on their parents insurance.
4). 80% of paid premium has to be spent on care.
5). No more denials for pre-existing conditions.
6). Seniors have new discounts for their prescriptions.
7). You can call 800-318-2596 to apply for healthcare
8). You can print off the PDF of the healthcare application and mail it in.
The ACA is moving along JUST fine. Despite your best efforts and conjecture...The administration is still committed to providing coverage for all Americans.
It's just as irresponsible for anyone to declare the ACA a failure when no one, including you, can determine if the program will actually be solvent. You're absolutely right that solvency is a measure for which the program will be evaluated, and that will take time. We're years away from being able to declare the ACA a success or failure. Sure the website is a dismal failure, but that doesn't say anything about the law.
Anyone or anything that requires the entire population to buy a service then regulates what that service must run like, is the creation of a monopoly. This is designed to fail ( bankrupt) insurer after insurer, until they all leave the market or go bankrupt.
There is no possibility of this NOT failing. Whether they make the website work or not eventually, is of no matter. The entire concept is incomprehensibly stupid.
I like this thread...it allows people to be honest without going along the party line.
I'm center-left but I am a registered Democrat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv
Democrats take the high road way too often. Even worse they too often let the right set the basis for discussion. Like after 9/11 the embassy attacks under Clinton were open to discussion but the ones under Bush weren't. In the last election Obama's college records were open to discussion but Romney's weren't
This. Also, Democrats basically have no spine. One thing I have to give the Republicans is their ability to manipulate the media. They are MASTERS at this. The Democrats...? Not so much.
And the fact the Democratic Senate under Bush did absolutely nothing until he was a lame duck. Then they pretended to be all powerful. Please. Sadly Harry Reid is from my home state.
Most other "liberal" things I take issue with have to do with feminism so I am not sure that applies here.
I lean moderate to left on most issues, but my biggest issue with the left is their stance on abortion. Some are pro choice in the "It's-wrong-but-I-won't-impose-that on-others" stance, which I understand. But many more have absolutely no qualms about abortion whatsoever; and are very glib about the ethical dilemmas that abortion presents. I also think it's hypocritical to claim to support the weak and vulnerable in society, when they won't speak up for the weakest and vulnerable of us, which in my view, are the unborn.
It's as hypocritical as conservatives who will stop at nothing to protect a fetus but don't care at all about that same baby once it's outside the womb. Two sides of the same coin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
